I'm creating my first grammar with ANTLR and ANTLRWorks 2. I have mostly finished the grammar itself (it recognizes the code written in the described language and builds correct parse trees), but I haven't started anything beyond that.
What worries me is that every first occurrence of a token in a parser rule is underlined with a yellow squiggle saying "Implicit token definition in parser rule".
For example, in this rule, the 'var' has that squiggle:
variableDeclaration: 'var' IDENTIFIER ('=' expression)?;
How it looks exactly:
The odd thing is that ANTLR itself doesn't seem to mind these rules (when doing test rig test, I can't see any of these warning in the parser generator output, just something about incorrect Java version being installed on my machine), so it's just ANTLRWorks complaining.
Is it something to worry about or should I ignore these warnings? Should I declare all the tokens explicitly in lexer rules? Most exaples in the official bible The Defintive ANTLR Reference seem to be done exactly the way I write the code.
I highly recommend correcting all instances of this warning in code of any importance.
This warning was created (by me actually) to alert you to situations like the following:
shiftExpr : ID (('<<' | '>>') ID)?;
Since ANTLR 4 encourages action code be written in separate files in the target language instead of embedding them directly in the grammar, it's important to be able to distinguish between << and >>. If tokens were not explicitly created for these operators, they will be assigned arbitrary types and no named constants will be available for referencing them.
This warning also helps avoid the following problematic situations:
A parser rule contains a misspelled token reference. Without the warning, this could lead to silent creation of an additional token that may never be matched.
A parser rule contains an unintentional token reference, such as the following:
number : zero | INTEGER;
zero : '0'; // <-- this implicit definition causes 0 to get its own token
If you're writing lexer grammar which wouldn't be used across multiple parser grammmar(s) then you can ignore this warning shown by ANTLRWorks2.
Related
I am trying to figure out how yacc identifies function calls in a C code. For Example: if there is a function call like my_fun(a,b); then which rules does this statement reduces to.
I am using the cGrammar present in : C Grammar
Following the Grammar given over there manually; I figured out that we only have two choices in translation unit. Everything has to either be a function definition or a declaration. Now all declaration starts type_specifiers, storage_class_specifier etc but none of them starts with IDENTIFIER
Now in case of a function call the name would be IDENTIFIER. This leaves me unclear as to how it will be parsed and which rules will be used exactly?
According to the official yacc specification specified here yacc, everything is handled by user given routines. When you have a function call the name of course is IDENTIFIER.It is parsed using the user defined procedures.According to the specifications, the user can specify his input in terms of individual input characters, or in terms of higher level constructs such as names and numbers. The user-supplied routine may also handle idiomatic features such as comment and continuation conventions, which typically defy easy grammatical specification.
Do have a look.By the way you are supposed to do a thorough research before putting questions here.
I use antlr4 with javascript target.
Here is a sample grammar:
P : T ;
T : [a-z]+ {console.log(this.text);} ;
start: P ;
When I run the generated parser, nothing is printed, although the input is matched. If I move the action to the token P, then it gets invoked. Why is that?
Actions are ignored in referenced rules. This was the original behavior of ANTLR 4, back when the lexer only supported a single action per token (and that action must appear at the end of the token).
Several releases later the limitation of one-action-per-rule was lifted, allowing any number of actions to be executed for a token. However, we found that many existing users relied on the original behavior, and wrote their grammars assuming that actions in referenced rules were ignored. Many of these grammars used complicated logic in these rules, so changing the behavior would be a severe breaking change that would prevent people from using new versions of ANTLR 4.
Rather than break so many existing ANTLR 4 lexers, we decided to preserve the original behavior and only execute actions that appear in the same rule as the matched token. Newer versions do allow you to place multiple actions in each rule though.
tl;dr: We considered allowing actions in other rules to execute, but decided not to because it would break a lot of grammars already written and used by people.
I found that #init and #after actions will override this default behavior.
Change the example code to:
grammar Test;
ALPHA : [a-z]+;
p : t ;
t
#init {
console.log(this.text);
}
#after {
console.log(this.text);
}
: ALPHA;
start: p ;
I changed parser rules to LOWER case as my Eclipse tool was complaining about the syntax otherwise. I also had to insert ALPHA for [a-z]+; for the same reason. The above text compiled, but I haven't tried running the generated parser. However, I am successfully working around this issue with #init/#after in my larger parser.
Hope this is helpful.
For many cases, a complete AST - as specified in a grammar spec - is great, since other code can obtain any syntactic detail.
Look at this AST forest:
My ANTLR generated parser is meant to statically analyze a programming language. Therefore, the tree variable -> base_variable_with_function_calls -> base_variable ... would't be of interest.
Solely the fact, that $d is a compound_variable would be enough detail.
Therefore: May I set somehow a ANTLR production rules as transient, so that ANTLR silently parses the grammar rule, but doesn't create intermediate AST nodes?
Obviously, such a tag could only be applied to productions, which have a single son node.
No, ANTLR 4 does not support this. The generated parse tree will contain every token matched by the grammar, and will contain a RuleNode for every rule invoked by the grammar.
I have an antlr generated Java parser that uses the C target and it works quite well. The problem is I also want it to parse erroneous code and produce a meaningful AST. If I feed it a minimal Java class with one import after which a semicolon is missing it produces two "Tree Error Node" objects where the "import" token and the tokens for the imported class should be.
But since it parses the following code correctly and produces the correct nodes for this code it must recover from the error by adding the semicolon or by resyncing. Is there a way to make antlr reflect this fixed input it produces internally in the AST? Or can I at least get the tokens/text that produced the "Tree Node Errors" somehow?
In the C targets
antlr3commontreeadaptor.c around line 200 the following fragment indicates that the C target only creates dummy error nodes so far:
static pANTLR3_BASE_TREE
errorNode (pANTLR3_BASE_TREE_ADAPTOR adaptor, pANTLR3_TOKEN_STREAM ctnstream, pANTLR3_COMMON_TOKEN startToken, pANTLR3_COMMON_TOKEN stopToken, pANTLR3_EXCEPTION e)
{
// Use the supplied common tree node stream to get another tree from the factory
// TODO: Look at creating the erronode as in Java, but this is complicated by the
// need to track and free the memory allocated to it, so for now, we just
// want something in the tree that isn't a NULL pointer.
//
return adaptor->createTypeText(adaptor, ANTLR3_TOKEN_INVALID, (pANTLR3_UINT8)"Tree Error Node");
}
Am I out of luck here and only the error nodes the Java target produces would allow me to retrieve the text of the erroneous nodes?
I haven't used antlr much, but typically the way you handle this type of error is to add rules for matching wrong syntax, make them produce error nodes, and try to fix up after errors so that you can keep parsing. Fixing up afterwards is the problem because you don't want one error to trigger more and more errors for each new token until the end.
I solved the problem by adding new alternate rules to the grammer for all possible erroneous statements.
Each Java import statement gets translated to an AST subtree with the artificial symbol IMPORT as the root for example. To make sure that I can differentiate between ASTs from correct and erroneous code the rules for the erroneous statements rewrite them to an AST with a root symbol with the prefix ERR_, so in the example of the import statement the artifical root symbol would be ERR_IMPORT.
More different root symbols could be used to encode more detailed information about the parse error.
My parser is now as error tolerant as I need it to be and it's very easy to add rules for new kinds of erroneous input whenever I need to do so. You have to watch out to not introduce any ambiguities into your grammar, though.
Aside from getting any real work done, I have an itch. My itch is to write a view engine that closely mimics a template system from another language (Template Toolkit/Perl). This is one of those if I had time/do it to learn something new kind of projects.
I've spent time looking at CoCo/R and ANTLR, and honestly, it makes my brain hurt, but some of CoCo/R is sinking in. Unfortunately, most of the examples are about creating a compiler that reads source code, but none seem to cover how to create a processor for templates.
Yes, those are the same thing, but I can't wrap my head around how to define the language for templates where most of the source is the html, rather than actual code being parsed and run.
Are there any good beginner resources out there for this kind of thing? I've taken a ganer at Spark, which didn't appear to have the grammar in the repo.
Maybe that is overkill, and one could just test-replace template syntax with c# in the file and compile it. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc136756.aspx#S2
If you were in my shoes and weren't a language creating expert, where would you start?
The Spark grammar is implemented with a kind-of-fluent domain specific language.
It's declared in a few layers. The rules which recognize the html syntax are declared in MarkupGrammar.cs - those are based on grammar rules copied directly from the xml spec.
The markup rules refer to a limited subset of csharp syntax rules declared in CodeGrammar.cs - those are a subset because Spark only needs to recognize enough csharp to adjust single-quotes around strings to double-quotes, match curley braces, etc.
The individual rules themselves are of type ParseAction<TValue> delegate which accept a Position and return a ParseResult. The ParseResult is a simple class which contains the TValue data item parsed by the action and a new Position instance which has been advanced past the content which produced the TValue.
That isn't very useful on it's own until you introduce a small number of operators, as described in Parsing expression grammar, which can combine single parse actions to build very detailed and robust expressions about the shape of different syntax constructs.
The technique of using a delegate as a parse action came from a Luke H's blog post Monadic Parser Combinators using C# 3.0. I also wrote a post about Creating a Domain Specific Language for Parsing.
It's also entirely possible, if you like, to reference the Spark.dll assembly and inherit a class from the base CharGrammar to create an entirely new grammar for a particular syntax. It's probably the quickest way to start experimenting with this technique, and an example of that can be found in CharGrammarTester.cs.
Step 1. Use regular expressions (regexp substitution) to split your input template string to a token list, for example, split
hel<b>lo[if foo]bar is [bar].[else]baz[end]world</b>!
to
write('hel<b>lo')
if('foo')
write('bar is')
substitute('bar')
write('.')
else()
write('baz')
end()
write('world</b>!')
Step 2. Convert your token list to a syntax tree:
* Sequence
** Write
*** ('hel<b>lo')
** If
*** ('foo')
*** Sequence
**** Write
***** ('bar is')
**** Substitute
***** ('bar')
**** Write
***** ('.')
*** Write
**** ('baz')
** Write
*** ('world</b>!')
class Instruction {
}
class Write : Instruction {
string text;
}
class Substitute : Instruction {
string varname;
}
class Sequence : Instruction {
Instruction[] items;
}
class If : Instruction {
string condition;
Instruction then;
Instruction else;
}
Step 3. Write a recursive function (called the interpreter), which can walk your tree and execute the instructions there.
Another, alternative approach (instead of steps 1--3) if your language supports eval() (such as Perl, Python, Ruby): use a regexp substitution to convert the template to an eval()-able string in the host language, and run eval() to instantiate the template.
There are sooo many thing to do. But it does work for on simple GET statement plus a test. That's a start.
http://github.com/claco/tt.net/
In the end, I already had too much time in ANTLR to give loudejs' method a go. I wanted to spend a little more time on the whole process rather than the parser/lexer. Maybe in version 2 I can have a go at the Spark way when my brain understands things a little more.
Vici Parser (formerly known as LazyParser.NET) is an open-source tokenizer/template parser/expression parser which can help you get started.
If it's not what you're looking for, then you may get some ideas by looking at the source code.